Cyprus 0 – Logic 1

Cyprus is famous for 4 things; its sun, its sheftalia, the production of the world famous KEO beer and the inadequacy of its politicians. The other thing Cyprus is famous for, is the amount of smokers it has. Yep, you got it, we will talk about the smoking ban.
In the past few days it was going on what was supposed to be a”public discussion” of the matter. The only thing missing from the discussion is the “public” and…it is not actually a discussion. It’s more of a monologue by the association of recreation establishments arguing against the ban.

I don’t blame them. Not because the ban should not be implemented, but because the actual enforcement should take place long after an information bombarding by the government. Information that should be directed to everyone affected. For example, the specific details of the law should be explained to the local businesses. At the same time, a series of anti-smoking campaigns should prepare, accompany and follow the ban.

What did our brilliant politicians did? Nothing. They though that our Ugandian (from Uganda, got it?) smoking policy could be Europeanised in a day. The last day of December, Cypriots will still be cancer-seeking smoking maniacs that have a general tendency to disobey the law. The next day, because of the LAW, Cypriots will become Europeans.

About the author

George Iordanou

I'm mostly interested in politics and philosophy, which makes up for the majority of this blog. As this is an archive of what I have written over the years, it also provides a glimpse into my personal life. I'm currently working in the humanitarian sector. In my past life I was in academia where I completed a Ph.D. in political theory with focus on multicultural citizenship. I'm one of the few people lucky enough to be given the opportunity to actually practice their research interests. Needless to say, whatever I write here is strictly my personal opinion and does not represent anyone else.

The smoking ban was inadequately discussed and will be inadequately implemented. What was supposedly a public discussion deteriorated into a dialogue between the government and a strong pressure group. So what?

What you are arguing for, is a change in the procedure adopted for enacting a 'law' that no one really wants. Not even the government. The anti smoking propaganda that you propose entails huge costs, costs that the taxpayer will have to bear. A public discussion implies taking part in the decision making process. 'Information bombarding and campaigns' are not a public discussion but mere propaganda. The government intentionally avoided to discuss this properly and they have no power to enforce it. As a result, on paper, we will become Europeans, but in reality we'll still be able to enjoy our KEO properly (i.e. Keo je tsiaro).

The “huge costs” of the anti-smoking information campaigns that i am suggesting will eventually be counterbalanced (and hopefully decreased) by the decline in cancer care patients.

What you are suggesting is: it is ok to continue smoking, because this is what WE cypriots like (arggg), and it is ok that the vast majority of teenagers smoke, because it is what THEY cypriots want (argggg^2).

Lets sit back and enjoy the increase in cancer patients, in teenage smokers, in orphan children, because YOU, the mighty cypriot, wants to enjoy his KEO with a pack of marlboros.

The smoking ban was inadequately discussed and will be inadequately implemented.
What was supposedly a public discussion deteriorated into a dialogue between the government and a strong pressure group. So what?

What you are arguing for, is a change in the procedure adopted for enacting a ‘law’ that no one really wants. Not even the government. The anti smoking propaganda that you propose entails huge costs, costs that the taxpayer will have to bear. A public discussion implies taking part in the decision making process. ‘Information bombarding and campaigns’ are not a public discussion but mere propaganda.
The government intentionally avoided to discuss this properly and they have no power to enforce it. As a result, on paper, we will become Europeans, but in reality we’ll still be able to enjoy our KEO properly (i.e. Keo je tsiaro).

I'm not Andreas btw. I'm just a smoker who knows that he's wrong. I just try to challenge you a bit.

What you say is pure speculation. Are there any statistics which prove that by passing smoking ban laws the number of smokers decreases or get less cancer? They just smoke outside or in a designated smoking area. I will still smoke 3 cigarettes with my frappe at home.

Another argument: Most of the cost that is needed to 'cure' cancer patients is internalised by imposing taxes on cigarettes.

The “huge costs” of the anti-smoking information campaigns that i am suggesting will eventually be counterbalanced (and hopefully decreased) by the decline in cancer care patients.What you are suggesting is: it is ok to continue smoking, because this is what WE cypriots like (arggg), and it is ok that the vast majority of teenagers smoke, because it is what THEY cypriots want (argggg^2). Lets sit back and enjoy the increase in cancer patients, in teenage smokers, in orphan children, because YOU, the mighty cypriot, wants to enjoy his KEO with a pack of marlboros.

I’m not Andreas btw. I’m just a smoker who knows that he’s wrong. I just try to challenge you a bit.

What you say is pure speculation. Are there any statistics which prove that by passing smoking ban laws the number of smokers decreases or get less cancer? They just smoke outside or in a designated smoking area. I will still smoke 3 cigarettes with my frappe at home.

Another argument: Most of the cost that is needed to ‘cure’ cancer patients is internalised by imposing taxes on cigarettes.

You can't base the whole debate solely on numbers and statistics. If we did so, we could go back as to say that smoking does not (beyond any reasonable doubt) cause cancer because we cannot prove that among all the things that can cause cancer, smoking is the one to do so. Using this logic, we are fucked (and potential cancer patients:P) 🙂

The “huge costs” of the anti-smoking information campaigns that i am suggesting will eventually be counterbalanced (and hopefully decreased) by the decline in cancer care patients.

What you are suggesting is: it is ok to continue smoking, because this is what WE cypriots like (arggg), and it is ok that the vast majority of teenagers smoke, because it is what THEY cypriots want (argggg^2).

Lets sit back and enjoy the increase in cancer patients, in teenage smokers, in orphan children, because YOU, the mighty cypriot, wants to enjoy his KEO with a pack of marlboros.

I'm not Andreas btw. I'm just a smoker who knows that he's wrong. I just try to challenge you a bit.

What you say is pure speculation. Are there any statistics which prove that by passing smoking ban laws the number of smokers decreases or get less cancer? They just smoke outside or in a designated smoking area. I will still smoke 3 cigarettes with my frappe at home.

Another argument: Most of the cost that is needed to 'cure' cancer patients is internalised by imposing taxes on cigarettes.

I'm not Andreas btw. I'm just a smoker who knows that he's wrong. I just try to challenge you a bit.

What you say is pure speculation. Are there any statistics which prove that by passing smoking ban laws the number of smokers decreases or get less cancer? They just smoke outside or in a designated smoking area. I will still smoke 3 cigarettes with my frappe at home.

Another argument: Most of the cost that is needed to 'cure' cancer patients is internalised by imposing taxes on cigarettes.

You can’t base the whole debate solely on numbers and statistics. If we did so, we could go back as to say that smoking does not (beyond any reasonable doubt) cause cancer because we cannot prove that among all the things that can cause cancer, smoking is the one to do so. Using this logic, we are fucked (and potential cancer patients:P) 🙂

You can't base the whole debate solely on numbers and statistics. If we did so, we could go back as to say that smoking does not (beyond any reasonable doubt) cause cancer because we cannot prove that among all the things that can cause cancer, smoking is the one to do so. Using this logic, we are fucked (and potential cancer patients:P) 🙂

You can't base the whole debate solely on numbers and statistics. If we did so, we could go back as to say that smoking does not (beyond any reasonable doubt) cause cancer because we cannot prove that among all the things that can cause cancer, smoking is the one to do so. Using this logic, we are fucked (and potential cancer patients:P) 🙂

Then what’s the reason of imposing a smoking ban if you can’t point to any long term positive effects?
With the same logic lets ban alcohol. In England alcohol related illnesses cost the NHS billions of pounds and there are statistics for that.

Then what's the reason of imposing a smoking ban if you can't point to any long term positive effects?With the same logic lets ban alcohol. In England alcohol related illnesses cost the NHS billions of pounds and there are statistics for that.